The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum What is the Corrct Atonement view?

As now in discussion with someone who denies the penal substitution model, and instead like NT Wright view on Jesus as the Victor one? That God used his obedience to save us, and not poured out His wrath on Him?
Isn't the penal atonement view the one the reformers held to being as the correct viewpoint?

I am wondering how you, after reading all those Reformed systematic theologies, don't know that the biblical doctrine of the atonement isn't penal?? From Genesis to Revelation, the atonement is revealed as being a forensic (legal) matter. The entire OT sacrificial system is based upon the law, its transgression and penalty upon those who don't keep it perfectly, etc. etc. There is an entire section on The Highway website dedicated to this subject HERE. Among the many articles there are several which address the "penal" aspect of the atonement, e.g., Packer's article, The Logic of Penal Substitution.

I did know that was the Biblical/reformed viewpoint, but also have interacted with others and have read authors like Wright who seem to be supporting other views?

Really? Then why did you ask this question?:

In ordewr to see how to respond to one holding to the NT Wright view on it?

You respond with the biblical teaching of penal atonement.

Could you explain what they mean by God honoring Jesus as the Covenant keeper, by his active obedience he saves us, and not thry taking the wrath of God for sins?
As the person talking to on this issue keeps bring up that God used Jesus active obedience to the father to save us, and that God did not really abandon/forsake Him while on the cross?

What I can tell you is that they totally reject the imputation of Christ's active obedience to the believing sinner which justifies once and for all time. simul iustus et peccatore

So how would God then be able to applying saving grace towards us without Jesus death in our place?

The imputation of Christ's active obedience has nothing to do with the death of Christ... that is the Passive Obedience of Christ vs. the Active Obedience of Christ.

Passive Obedience was Christ's vicarious, substitutionary atonement unto God to pay the penalty for sin; propitiation, redemption/ransom/, reconciliation, and sacrifice.

Active Obedience was Christ's keeping of the law perfectly, which showed He was without sin and thus was raised from the dead for our justification.

In Christ's passive obedience, the penalty for sin was imputed to Him (2Cor 5:21; Rom 5:12-18; Gal 2:20), but His active obedience (righteousness) is imputed to the believing elect.

They would then to overemphasize his active obedience at expense of His passive then. correct?

As person discussing this with would really avert away from wrath of God, being forsaken of God on the Cross, to found acceptable as the obedient servant of the Lord?

I thought I had made this issue clear. It is not a matter of "emphasis" but of total denial. FV and NPP along with their variants totally deny the IMPUTATION of Christ's active obedience. They redefine 'imputation' as they do to many other terms, e.g., faith, justification, etc. This is Justification 101. If you do not have a firm biblical understanding of what justification IS and what it MEANS, then you are going to have myriad problems trying to comprehend any and all heresies on this subject. This is why I told you several times to forget about reading the endless material written that teaches error. You FIRST need to know Scripture and what IT teaches and then saturate yourself with the writings of the godly orthodox men of the past; the Reformers and Puritans for a start.

When the Spirit regenerates a spiritually dead sinner, that person is given the insatiable desire to seek and grasp onto the PERSON of the Lord Christ via genuine heart-felt conviction of sin which expresses itself in repentance, and a true living faith (fiducia). At the moment this occurs, God declares that believer justified ONCE AND FOR ALL, i.e., the perfect righteousness of Christ (active obedience) is imputed to his account. Consequently, the sinner is legally not guilty and no longer under condemnation. But further, that believer is deemed to be perfectly righteousness legally. Luther's declaration is succinct: simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously [at the same time] just [perfectly righteous] and sinner.)

What difference between their view and Rome take on God infusing His grace in us to have us to merit getting saved in the end?